tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC August 17, 2018 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
revoked his security clearance. and steve bannon talks to ari melbourne an exclusive interview at 10:00 p.m. eastern. with that, i hand over for the last time this week, to rachel maddow for "the rachel maddow show." >> it has been fun crossing over with you. you have done a great job at 8:00. fun to have you here, my friend. well deserved weekend ahead for you. >> you, too. happy friday. we here on this show are having a big news night tonight that we have been prepping for for the past two days. we have for our special guest tonight former cia director john brennan. director brennan is the first in what the president has threatened will be a long line of current and former senior law enforcement and intelligence officials whose security clearances the president plans to revoke. almost all of the officials he has put on his list thus far are perhaps coincidentally people who might be in a position to conceivably testify about what
they observed during the russian attack on the 2016 election. including potentially ties to trump campaign officials and reaction to the investigation from inside the trump trancitiotrance iti trancition and the trump white house and the staff itself. after the president yanked the security clearance, the president told "had the wall street journal" bluntly and in an impromptu interview the reason he went after the cia director that way, the reason he revoked the security clearances is specifically because of the russia investigation. the president drew a direct link telling "the journal," quote, i call it the rigged witch-hunt. it is a sham. and these people led it. no president is ever known to have ever personally intervened to revoke the security clearance of any official or former official. yet alone for the reason this president explained in this
case. when you're on unchartered territory, you don't always know what will come next for us as a country, but when you're the person in the middle of unchartered attacks like this, you have to wonder what it feels like. this interview tonight with john brennan will be his first live tv interview since the president took this action. director brennan, thank you very much for being here tonight. i know you have choices about where to be. thanks for being here. >> thanks, rachel, for having me on. >> so, you were cia director from 2013 to january of 2017. >> right. >> you were president obama's counterterrorism and homeland security adviser. you were 25 years as a cia officer before that. you have been through some stressful situations in your life. how has it been the past couple days since the president singled you out for attack and punishment in this way? >> it's fine. as far as i'm concerned personally, i'm fine. it's not unexpected. he had signaled something like
this would happen. no one got in touch with me from the cia since it was first noted that my security clearance was under review. sarah huckabee sanders was announcing that these clearances were revoked. i was not shocked for a couple reasons. one a heads up and, secondly, i'm not quite shocked at all the appalling things mr. trump has done. so, i think this is an egregious act that it flies in the face of traditional practice, as well as common sense, as well as national security. i think that's why there's been such an outcry from many intelligence professionals. not to support me, but to support the principal that security clearances are something that are very solemn and sacred and they never, ever should be used for political purposes. eether to grant friends those clearances or to revoke clearances. >> with three decades experience
and all your other service, clearly you're familiar with clearances and the processes around clearances and the processes for revoking them for cause. when the president first signaled that he might go after your security clearance, did you expect that the cia would then be put through its paces in terms of the normal procedures for how these things go. that they would write a memo and evaluate whether you had behaved in any way that would justify this action. did you expect it to go through channels? >> if these were formal times, i would have expected it. these are, quite frankly, frightening times. i did not expect any adherence to process and any adherence to the steps and measures and regulations that exist by order. just because he has the authority to do these things that he has, in fact, to do it irrespective of what is truly the appropriate thing to do.
>> and appropriate is a general wordcummings suggested that even though the president has the right to handle security clearances as commander in chief, there are executive orders that supposedly guide the way these things are handled. suggested overtly that it may be illegal what the president has done. congressman shift who is the top democrat on intel suggested the same thing. are you considering legal action or do you think you have a legal right to exert against the president's actions here. >> as you can imagine, a number of lawyers reached out to say there is a very strong case here, not so much to reclaim mine but to prevent this from happening in the future. so, i am thinking about what it is that i might want to do. at this time, i'm trying to make sure that the principle is defended and supported and this is something that should not be repeated.
the other people on the so-called enemy's list now, i think this is just another example of mr. trump trying to frighten and intimidate others. but i can tell you, having worked in the national security and intelligence, these are not the type of people who are bullied or intimidated by the likes of someone of mr. trump. >> there is a list. they are former senior, one currently serving justice department official and there's actually some news about him tonight that i want to get your reaction to. just broke in the last hour or so. but among this list, you appear to be first. the president is threatening to revoke everybody else's security clearances. he acted against you. do you have a sense of why the president thinks you're so special? why he has, why he's started with you. and i don't know, i guess i don't know if i'm asking about something personal. i guess the way i imagine this might go is that there might be
something that you know or he knows that you know that might be making him particularly angry or particularly nervous. >> i don't know what it is that is motivating mr. trump to focus on me at first. i met mr. trump only once at trump tower in early january 2017 when we briefed him on russian interference election. i have been outspoken and i'm sure that my outspokenness and some of the things that i have said have, you know, irritated him. i wish i didn't have to say these things. and it's one thing to have policy differences or substantive differences with presidents and i had them in the past with previous presidents. what really gets under my skin is mr. trump's lack of integrity, honesty and his lack of commitment to this country's well being and national security. mr. trump is motivated by whatever is in the best interest of mr. trump. that has been for many decades.
i was hoping that he was going to change once he assumed the solemn responsibilities of the office of presidency. that's why for my first year i sometimes spoke out when he was in front of the agency's memorial wall and spoke about the size of his inauguration crowd and i did it very, very selectively. i gave him a year. i said maybe he is going to adapt and change. but it seemed like day after day, week after week, month after month, things just got worse. he did not live up to what americans expect of the president of the united states. to speak with great forcefulness but to do it with integrity and honesty. mr. trump, time after time, i think has really just disappointed millions of americans. which i'm trying to give voice to. so, i know a lot of people think a former intelligence official shouldn't do this. i don't consider what i'm doing as political at all. i never registered as a republican or democrat for my entire life. but i feel such a commitment to this country's security and its
reputation. and i'm the son of an immigrant and my father taught me and my siblings early on just how important it is that we take as very special the privilege of being born an american citizen. and, so, when i see what mr. trump is doing, basically trashing the reputation of his country worldwide and the way he has treated americans. fellow americans. how he refers to them. the devisiveness, the incitement, the fueling of hatred and polarization. this is not what this country is about. >> presidents over the centuries, over the generations, some of them have been terrible jerks, if you read the right history books. some have been deliberatively divisive and some had terrible ideas or treated people in their personal life or political life in egregious ways. your criticism of president trump rises above that type.
despite what you just art articulated here. you've gone further than that. after helsinki you were a little scary in your criticism of his behavior. you said it rose to treason. >> i says nothing short of treasonness. >> in this current controversy that specific comment has been singled out by a number of people as a comment that may be by you crossed the line. >> crossed what line? freedom of speech? private sector. >> do you stand by that consideration and can you explain, can you elaborate what you mean by treasonness? it's a serious allegation. >> i know what the russians did in interfering in the election. i have 100% confidence in what they did. for mr. trump to stand on that stage in helsinki with all the world's eyes upon him and he doesn't understand why would the russians interfere in the elections. he's given them a pass time after time after time and keeps
referring to it as a witch-hunt and bogus and, to me, this was an attack against the foundational principle of our republic the right of all americans to choose their elected leaders. for mr. trump to so cavalierly so dismiss that, yes, sometimes my irish comes out in my tweets and i did say that it rises to and exceeds the level of high crimes and misdemeanors and nothing short of treasonness because he had the opportunity there to be able to say to the world that this is something that happened. it should never, ever happen, again. if russia tries at all to do it, they're going to pay serious price for it. i don't expect mr. putin to acknowledge it. he is going to deny, deny, deny. but for the president of the united states to continue on this issue, i think, does a great injustice and a disservice
to the men and women of the intelligence law enforcement community and does a great disservice to the citizens of the united states. and that's why i said it was nothing short of treasonness. i didn't mean that he committed treason. but it was a term that i used, nothing short of treasonness. >> but you didn't mean that he committed treason, though. >> it was nothing short of treasonness. that's the term i used. >> if we diagram the sentence, nothing short means it's treason. i mean, the reason i'm bringing this out is because when you say, i know what the russians did and when you knowing what the russians did observing the president's behavior, you go to the word treason and suggest that you think that the president may be serving a foreign country rather than our own. >> well, yeah. i think he has crossed the line repeatedly in terms of his failure to fulfill the responsibility of the office. and to look putin square in the eye and say, this should never, ever happen again. >> do you think that he is knowingly serving the interest
of the russian government instead of the u.s. government? >> i scratch my head a lot. i'm puzzled over why mr. trump acts this week with secretness to mr. putin. i don't know. and i'm not going to try to pretend that i know. but there is something that is very disconcerting, very worrisome about how an individual who occupies the oval office interacts with mr. putin. and i'm a great advocate of improving relations between moscow and washington, don't get me wrong. i was a strong supporter of that during the obama administration. i stuck my neck out a number of times particularly on syria. we need to work with the russians to bring this mass carnage to a halt. but time after time the russians, but i do believe we need to get this behind us. i don't want this to, you know, royal the waters forever. but we need to have a president who is going to acknowledge this
and make sure that he is able to then move on. >> how do we get this behind us? i mean, you're suggesting that there's things that we do not yet know that have not yet been adjudicated or laid fairly before the american people to the president and his connection with what happened to russia. do we need to know that to move on or should we decide to move on before we know? >> it's called the mueller investigation. it's called the dooley appointed special counsel who has given the mandate to investigate what russia did in terms of interference in our presidential election. and who might have been working in support of russian objectives. and who might have committed a crime in that process. and that's why robert mueller is a real national treasure. he needs to continue with this investigation unimpeded. >> mueller's indictment about the russian military intelligence lays out in great detail an alleged criminal conspiracy to sway the u.s. election. it's named conspirators and
names what they did. an agreement among multiple actors and they took actions in pursuit of that name. >> on the part of a foreign government, which you need. foreign government. yes, excellent. >> but because that conspiracy has been defined, what would an american have to do to be considered part of that conspiracy? all right, if you've got a foreign conspiracy orchestrated by a foreign government, what does it mean to have an american better. the word collusion is used by anybody for any reason. but what would amount in your mind, intelligence terms, to an american being a part of that conspiracy, the one that has been defined by robert mueller already. >> i will leave it to the lawyers and the courts to decide whether something is criminal or not. in my mind, it requires someone to knowingly support the efforts of a foreign government to interfere in u.s. domestic politics and especially an
election. so, any american who was working with the russians, or working with intermediaries who are working with the russians and those americans who knowingly tried to collude, conspire and to work with them in order to advance their political objectives here in the states, i think that rises to the level of conspiracy. now, a lot depends on what robert mueller has been able to uncover. maybe there's none of that. and in my op-ed in "new york times" when i said mr. trump's claims of no collusion or hogwash. there is collusion in open sight now. so many things i learned since i lost office because of what has appeared in the press. the trump tower meeting with don jr. and others. and also when i was cia director. it was the day mr. trump basically gave a public call to the russians to find hillary clinton's e-mails. matter of fact, the same day that the gru was actively looking for it. so, there is collusion in plain
sight. but i don't know whether any of that rises to the level of conspiracy and whether that conspiracy rises to criminal responsibility. >> an open setting congressional testimony last spring that in the summer of 2016, you at cia were alarmed by, said your radar went up about the number of contracts between russian officials and u.s. persons at a time that russia was mounting this interference campaign. when you say that your radar went up about that, did you radar go up about that because it appeared that the russian operation had as a component the engagement of americans towards that end or was it specifically because of the people, the americans, the specific u.s. citizens who those russians were targeting. what was it that put your alarm up? >> first, i knew it was a very intense russian effort to interfere in the election, number one. number two, i am well aware and have a lot of experience in observing what the russians will
do to get american citizens to work for them. and this was a very intensive effort and, so, as i said in my op-ed, myself and jim comey and mike rogers say we talked about the importance of making sure that our radar, our collection radar was up so that we had early indications or be able to uncover any effort on the part of the russians to work with american citizens. the american citizens were reaching out to the russians, as well. see if they could get any dirt on hillary clinton. so, my radar was going because i knew the russians were engaged in this effort and i was aware of contracts with american citizens that may have been totally innocent on the american citizens part and maybe they weren't betting at all. >> was it clear to you that those contacts were part of the operation? that it was part of the way that russia was trying to accomplish its objectives? >> i was very concerned and aware that the russians were trying to leverage u.s. citizens in order to achieve their
objectives in the presidential election. >> while you were in office as cia director before you left on inauguration day, did you conclude that u.s. persons were successfully leveraged in that effort? >> no. no. and that's why i said in open testimony that i was concerned about these contracts because people will go down a treasoness path and the russians are very clever at getting people in positions of potential compromising positions that they then cannot sort of turn back. so, when i left office on january 20th of 2017, i had unresolved questions in my mind if any of those u.s. persons were working in support of the russian efforts. >> and those were referred, those concerns about specific u.s. persons refer to the fbi. >> we call it incidental collection in terms of cia's
foreign intelligence collection authorities. any time we would incidentally collect information on a u.s. person, we would hand that over to the fbi because they have the legal authority to do it. we would not pursue that type of investigative, you know, sort of leads. we would give it to the fbi. we were picking things up that was of great relevance to the fbi and we wanted to make sure that they were there so they can piece it together with whatever they were collecting here domestically here. >> we put together a fusion center at cia that brought nsa officers together to make sure those that proverbial dots were connected. >> one other thing that happened as your tenure as cia director i don't believe you have been asked about this before. several weeks before the election in 2016, the early fall of 2016, i know, purse male, that two well respected reporters here at nbc approached you and asked you about a story that they were chasing,
concerning then candidate donald trump and connections he might have to russian and the kremlin. you were approached by these reporters. they were asking for either on the record or off the record guidance from you on that story and they say you told them, i don't think i can help you with that. i don't think i can help you with this. i can't confirm it. i don't have that for you, i can't help you. you wouldn't confirm any of it, you offered no help. this was september of 2016. it sounds like at that time that you did know quite a lot about the russian operation influence and potential connections to the trump campaign. the press was coming to you with these queries. they were coming to you from within this building. was that of interest to you that the press seemed to be on to some of this and how did you handle that press interest? >> i don't think i have been asked this question on a news show. but, in fact, i informed the senate intelligence committee about this in my closed testimony over the past year and
a half. yes, it was in september. and two journalists members of the media asked me if i heard about a document or a report that contained some salacious information related to donald trump. >> were they asking about the allege sex tape. >> they were talking about that and they used some of those descripters. didn't go into great detail but they led me to believe that it was related to some things that might have happened in moscow. i didn't confirm nor deny anything for various reasons. one is that i don't talk to american journalists about u.s. persons ever. number two, much less talk about a u.s. presidential candidate to journalists. and it was later that year when, in december, was the first time
i had ever put eyes on the so-called steel dossier that i recalled the conversation i had with those two members of the media. and said, oh, this must be what they're talking about because they said this was widely circulating among the media and the press, this document, this report and these rumors and whatever else. i basically told them, i can't help you with that and i'm not going to engage. but it was subsequent to that that i connected the dots then and said they must have been talkingimately referred to the dossier. i did not see it until december. a lot of people out there including members of congress who claimed i told senate majority leader, minority leader at the time harry reid in august of september. th that is false. i did not have eyes or information on that until after the election. that's right. >> before it was published in january, but after the election
in november. >> it became a hot topic of debate within cia, nsa and fbi and dni about whether or not to take that dossier into account when the intelligence community assessment was done. we decided no because there's no way we could substantiate it. it wasn't in an intelligent document. was appended to it but not taken into account at all as the intelligence assessment community is completed. >> president made a specific on the record allegation against you on that specific topic. also a little bit of breaking news about the security clearance fallout after the president revoked your security clearance this week. please, stick with us. former cia director john brennan is my guest. we'll be right back. a hotel can make or break a trip. and at expedia, we don't think you should be rushed into booking one. that's why we created expedia's add-on advantage. now after booking your flight, you unlock discounts on select hotels right until the day you leave.
♪ add-on advantage. discounted hotel rates when you add on to your trip. only when you book with expedia. it's a revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now, from $899, during sleep number's 'biggest sale of the year'. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to put your pedal to the metal. and now, all beds are on sale. save 50% on the new sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus 24-month financing on all beds. only for a limited time. sleep number. proven, quality sleep.
3 toddlers won't stop him.. and neither will lower back pain. because at a dr. scholl's kiosk he got a recommendation for our custom fit orthotic to relieve his foot, knee, or lower back pain, from being on his feet. dr. scholl's. born to move. this wi-fi is fast. i know! i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week.
like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's. joining us, once again, for his first sit down interview since president trump revoked his security clearance in an unprecedented move this week,
former cia director john brennan. thank you, again, for being here. i want to ask you about this breaking news we had tonight from "washington post." you can see the headline here white house drafts more clearance cancellations demanded by trump. i will just leread you the lead. revoking security clearances of current and former officials who president trump, trump wants to sign, quote, most, if not all of them, said one senior white house official who indicated that communication aides including press secretary sarah huckabee sanders and the new deputy chief of staff discussed the optimum times to release them as a distraction during unfavorable news cycles. here's the part about you. the senior white house official acknowledged that the step taken this week against john brennan had been prepared in late july when sanders first said trump was considering it.
but the step was taken this week to divert attention from nonstop coverage of a critical book released by fired aide. consideration is being given for other prepared documents in reserve for similar opportunities in the future. do you have any reaction learning to that, according to a white house official, that this is why the president took this action against you this week? >> this is just another demonstration of his irresponsibility in terms of holding that office. just because he has these authorities, and he does. he can revoke and he has revoked my clearances and others and just the way he can give pardons out. i'm not a lawyer, but i know there is a question about whether or not there is corrupt intent terms of doing this. i think this is a thing that lawyers and courts and others are going to be looking at in terms of whether mr. trump is going to be doing any of this to obstruct justice or try to silence critics, whatever. but the fact that he's using a
security clearance of a former cia director as a pawn in his public relations strategy, i think, is just so reflective of somebody who, quite frankly, don't want to use this term maybe, but he's drunk on power. he really is. i think he's abusing the powers of that office. i think right now this country is in a crisis in terms of what mr. trump has done and is liable to do. are the republicans on the hill who have given him a pass, are they going to wait for a disaster to happen before they actually find their back bones and spines to speak up against somebody who clearly, clearly is not carrying out his responsibilities with any sense of purpose and common sense from the stand point of a national security. >> when you raised that kind of prospect, what kind are you envisioning? >> what happens if he wants to do something on the foreign
front in terms of some type of military adventure. you know, the wag the dog scenario as a way to distract attention. as things get increasingly tough for him and the waters get choppier. how desperate will he become. what else is he going to do to distract attention? i am really quite surprised and very disappointed in many of the republican members of congress. a lot of them who i know well and respect, but for whatever reason, they are turning a blind eye and making excuses for someone who doesn't deserve to be given this type of leash with the authorities of the office of the presidency. >> the authority that he is exerting here is, again, an untested one because no president has been known to use his security clearance like a weapon. one other thing discussed in the breaking news is that there is particular concern expressed even within the white house about the president's statement today that he intend very quickly to strip the clearance of a current justice department
official bruce orr. some people have suggested that depending on what his actual job is at the justice department right now, stripping his security clearance might actually effectively be a way of firing him, if he needs a security clearance to do his job. >> absolutely. would be. >> is the president exercising a new authority here to fire people, disable people from doing their jobs, even if he's constitutionally unable to fire that official. >> i think he's out of control. he is, has the steering wheel of the american vehicle in his hands. and he's veering wildly right now. he's trying to preserve and protect himself. and, so, what more demonstration do you want some when things get really, really bad. i'm glad his revoking my security clearance will wake some people up. look at all the people who have come and spoken out. intelligence community over the past several decades saying, enough is enough. and so when are the members of
congress and the republican party going to say, enough is enough. this country is more important than mr. trump. this country is more important than party affiliation. i'm waiting for it. i'm hoping for it and i truly hope that it's going to happen sooner rather than later. >> because the president has overtly today raised this prospect of going after this current justice department official and raised the question for me as to whether he might do that to the attorney general, who he has criticized this week calling him not a real attorney general or to the deputy attorney general who oversees the mueller investigation or to fbi director chris wray. >> or bob mueller or the team of investigators there. >> that was raised publicly by james clapper this week. i wondered what you thought about that. >> it demonstrates that anything is possible with mr. trump in the oval office. he has the authorities. he can yank the security clearances of basically anybody
he wants. i think it is subject to challenge. but if he decides to yank the challenges tomorrow or the investigators working on this special counsel's effort, they're not going to have access to classified information they need to do their jobs. so, again, how desperate is he going to get? and do the republicans really want to have to clean up after a disaster or do they want to stop this before it becomes disastrous? it's their choice. and if things become disastrous, it's going to be on their shoulders, on their conscious. >> you have said that since you left the cia, you have returned to the agency several times. specifically to review materials in order to prepare yourself for congressional testimony for questioning by congressional staffers. will the loss of your clearances affect your ability to do that? >> i've returned to the cia twice to talk about, well, in support of my congressional testimony.
i had to go back and reread the files. one other time a cia official asked me to come in to talk about things and that was with using my security clearances, so i could talk freely about things. another time, director pompeo when he was there. every year the director of cia invites back former directors and i have never gone into cia to ask for any type of briefing. i've never gone in there to access any type of computer. so, again, i'll be fine. and i don't want to get anybody in cia in trouble, you know, in terms of their reaching out to me. i think there has been a chilling effect on the part of what mr. trump is doing and his characterization of me that, i think, cia officers are pretty reluctant to be found out that they, you know, consulted me about a matter. >> with now nearly every living director and former director of the cia speaking out in support
of you today -- >> support of the principle security clearances. >> and in support of you personally. personal praise and support for you there, too. even among former officials who say they don't agree with your criticism of the president. they support you and reject any, with 60 former cia officials joining their own letter today and this is becoming a larger issue, not a smaller one in terms of the public debate on this matter. speaking of the public debate on this matter, can i chain you to the desk for one more second? >> sure. we'll be back with former cia director john brennan. thank you. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth...
we're listening to what matters most to you. and we're committed to improving every ride. starting with features designed to make it easy for your driver to find you... taking the stress out of pickups. ♪ we're putting safety at the heart of everything we do... by making it easy to verify your car, and driver. uber has new leadership, a new vision, and is moving in a new direction... forward
trump incorporated laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets? what does trump incorporated mean there? seems like you're making an organized crime reference. >> the orbit of individuals that are associated in one way or another with mr. trump. rick gates has already admitted to doing it. paul manafort, his trial is now to the jury, who is being charged with those types of extensive criminal activities. so, the use of, you know, financial transactions is a way to move money. you know, i don't know who else that is associated with mr. trump, but you're talking about the former campaign manager and the former deputy campaign manager. i think mr. trump over the years, i think, has associated himself with some individuals of some, you know, questionable business practices. all i'm saying is that as a result of the investigation that mr. mueller is doing, those financial transactions are a critically important part of the
investigative pros. >> is there a money element to the russia operation to influence the election. some banking and money moving illusions, seemingly not on a large scale in the mueller indictment in terms of how the russia operation unfolded. as far as you know and as far as you can tell us, is there a financial component to that that may be helpful in terms of understanding the scale of the crime? >> where know the russians have used financial transactions in previous efforts overseas to influence the outcome of election and i talked about this with jim comey quite a bit to make sure that our radar and antenna were up in terms of what types of monies might be moving as part of this russian effort. maybe they were not at all, in fact, connected with the campaign. but, you know, the term follow the money is very, very important one whether you're pursuing organized crime or you're pursuing some type of counterintelligence operation. so, i wouldn't be surprised at all if the special counsel has
uncovered a number of those or some financial transactions that do speak to russia's efforts. >> one last very specific thing to ask you. you were cia director through the election and through the transition your last day and ended at noon on inauguration day. there have been published reports that some of the russian influence from the russia campaign were campaigned for a new purpose during the transition, once trump was elected and serving president-elect and standing up to the new administration. published reports that during the transition, russian efforts were redirected to try to sway the selection of some of the president-elect's cabinets. specifically, basically, the russian repurposed to mitt romney and cheer lead for the eventual choice rex tillerson. you were cia director at the time those things were allegedly happening. can you comment on that at all? >> influence american politics in the aftermath of the inauguration on january 20th of
2017 did not stop with election day in november. they continued throughout the course of those months between election day, inauguration day. in order to do whatever they could to ensure that whatever happened in american politics in 2017, 2018 and beyond was going to be as favorable to them as possible. >> director brennan, i just want to underscore one point that you made in our initial segment which is you said you are considering the possibility of legal action? >> it would be with the eye towards preventing this type of abuse by donald trump in the future, not to reclaim mine. this is the first time in 38 years i haven't had a security clearance. i am very concerned about the future, it was a privilege every day to be a part of this community that kept this country, this wonderful country strong and safe and i don't want to ever allow a politician or
someone in the oval office to just so cavalierly toss around security clearances. i will fight on behalf of those who still have their clearances. >> director brennan, i have disagreed with you publicly and privately on a number of serious policies, i look forward to talk about this, too. for all my disagreements, i have profound respect for your service. thanks. >> thanks, rachel. >> director john brennan of the cia. 25 years cia officer and four years as cia director stripped this week of his security clearance by the president, something unprecedented happens almost every day. you would think that would be a blessing in the news business, sometimes it feels like a curse. we'll be right back. it's time for the 'biggest sale of the year' on the
but it's tough to gete enough of their nutrients. new one a day with nature's medley is the only complete multivitamin with antioxidants from one total serving of fruits and veggies try new one a day with nature's medley. we can'twhy?y here! flat toilet paper! i'll never get clean! way ahead of you. charmin ultra strong. it cleans better. it's four times stronger and you can use less. enjoy the go with charmin.
sharper vision, without limits. days that go from sun up to sun down. a whole world in all its beauty. three innovative technologies for our ultimate in vision, clarity, and protection. together in a single lens. essilor ultimate lens package. purchase the essilor ultimate lens package and get a second pair of qualifying lenses free. essilor. better sight. better life. with the new chase ink business unlimited card i get unlimited 1.5% cash back. it's so simple, i don't even have to think about it. so i think about the details. fine, i obsess over the details. introducing chase ink business unlimited with unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase. bundle and save big, but now it's time to find my dream abode. -right away, i could tell his priorities were a little unorthodox. -keep going. stop. a little bit down. stop. back up again. is this adequate sunlight for a komodo dragon? -yeah.
-sure, i want that discount on car insurance just for owning a home, but i'm not compromising. -you're taking a shower? -water pressure's crucial, scott! it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. -they don't say that. . after 14 hours and 45 minutes of deliberations, jurors in the case of paul manafort haven't reached a verdict. they get the weekend off. they will be back in court 9:45 on monday. but there is another legal threat about the president and his campaign that is worth polling on while we wait for that verdict. today was the deadline for the special counsel's office to file their recommendation for sentencing related to george papadoupolis. he pled guilty to lying to the fbi about his contacts with russian officials while working on the trump campaign. he will get sentenced the friday
after labor day. but today was the government's deadline to tell the judge how much time they think he should get. he has reportedly been cooperating with the special counsel's office. the sentencing recommendation is not just interesting because it will show us how much prison time he might get, it is also an important window into how the government thinks that cooperation thing with him went. if he was a helpful cooperator, able and willing to help the special counsel's office with their recommendation, they might recommend a shorter sentence or vice versa, right? it is an interesting little tea leaf we have been waiting for. we waited all day long. the clock was ticking a little louder than normal because his wife has been talking to reporters and going on twitter this week saying she thinks her husband should fire all his lawyers and blow up his plea deal and stop cooperating with
the government. we had our eyes glued waiting to see what the government was going to say about him. finally at 8:24 p.m. eastern time, we got their sentencing recommendation for papadopoulos. anywhere between 0 and 6 months. prosecutors telling the judge that the defendant's crime was serious. when he lied about his contacts with russian officials, that, quote, caused damage to the government's investigation into the interference into the 2016 election. that professor, quote, well got away. quote, the defendant's lies undermined investigators ability to challenge the professor or detain or arrest him while he was still in the united states. the government understands that the professor left the u.s. on february 11th, 2017, and he has not returned to the u.s. since then. prosecutors say the judge -- tell the judge tonight that even
after he was arrested and charged, he was not completely forthcoming with the investigation. quote, the defendant did not provide substantial assistance and much of the information provided by the defendant came only after the government confronted him with his own e-mails, text messages, internet search history and other information it had obtained via search warrants and subpoenas well after the defendant's fbi interview as the government continued its investigation. he did not notify the government about a cell phone he used in london during the course of the campaign that had on it substantial communications between the defendant and the russian professor who promised him dirt on hillary clinton. he did not turn over that cell phone until his fourth and final proper session with the fbi. the special counsel's office isn't making any suggestion as to what motivated george papa u
papadoupolos to lie. but the record shows that at the time of the interview when papadopoulos first lied he was attempting to secure a job with the trump administration. in january 2017 he had several communications with the administration to obtain a position with the state department or the energy department. on january 27th, so a week after the inauguration, in the hours after being interviewed with the fbi, the defendant submitted his biography and work he did on the campaign in an effort to obtain a position as the deputy assistant secretary in the energy department. after he's getting questioned by the fbi he's asking to become a deputy assistant energy secretary? that's the special counsel's office spelling out when he was lying to the fbi about his
lying, when he was lying to the fbi about that. he was also in talks with the trump transition team to get himself a high ranking job because how could his fbi involvement and lying to them about russia be an impediment to a high-level job. in this administration, heh. again, the government as of tonight asking for 0 to 6 months in prison for him. more ahead. stay with us. un-stop right there! i'm about to pop a cap of "mmm fresh" in that washer.
the full value oft wyour new car? you'd be better off throwing your money right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with liberty mutual new car replacement we'll replace the full value of your car. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪ it's the ford summer sales event and now is the best time to buy. you ready for this, junior?
yeah, i think i can handle it. no pressure... ...that's just my favorite boat. boom. (laughs) make summer go right with ford, america's best-selling brand. and get our best deal of the summer: zero percent financing for sixty months on f-150. get zero percent financing for 60 months- plus $2,800 bonus cash on a 2018 f-150 xlt equipped with 2.7l ecoboost. this wi-fi is fast. i know! i know! i know!
i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's. papadopoulos. i have a little gift from the universe for you. if you live in the united states and you follow the u.s. convention of writing out calendar dates like this, a digit representing the month and then two digits representing the day of the month and two digits representing the year, and look written that way today's date is the same going backwards and forwards. august 17th, 2018 is 8-17-18.
backwards it is also 8-17-18. do you feel the cosmic bliss? tomorrow will be 8-19-18. thank you. 8-18-18, sorry. and then sunday will be 8-19-18. which is also the same backwards. may not be nearly as comforting to you as me. math and symmetry may not be your thing, but in a world that can use some balance, i will take it. happy 8-17-18 backwards. i turn now to my colleague ari melber live in washington. >> one point with brennan that i thought was so interesting in your interview, he seemed to want to convey to you and everyone watching that he doesn't view what